Housing and Community Development Committee
April 25, 2024

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

April 25, 2024, 5:30 p.m.

City Hall North Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Committee Members:

Manpreet Kaur
Bob Smith
Bruce Freeman

1. ROLL CALL

2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
a. Agenda Item Public Statements
b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. Adoption of November 14, 2023 Special Meeting and February 8, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes
Staff recommends adoption of minutes.

4. REPORTS

5. DEFERRED BUSINESS

6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Offsite Review Requirements Nexus of Proportionality Review proposed changes to Municipal Code related to a referral on offsite review requirements which is now being called the “Nexus of Proportionality.” Provide direction to staff on any changes recommended to the Municipal Code related to what would trigger offsite conditions on projects within the City and the downtown Core.
b. Downtown and Old Town Kern Parking Analysis
Staff recommends Committee receive and file the analysis and consider the recommendations to assist and encourage more demand and profitability to the parking garage for a future enterprise endeavor.

7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS

8. ADJOURNMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: April 25, 2024 AGENDA CATEGORY: Adoption of minutes TO: Planning and Development Committee
FROM: Julie Drimakis, City Clerk
DATE: April 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Adoption of November 14, 2023, Special Meeting and February 8, 2024, Regular meeting minutes.

[Document Description]

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends adoption of minutes.

BACKGROUND:

Adoption of meeting minutes

FISCAL IMPACT:

No impact on the General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

1. November 14, 2023 Special meeting

2. February 8, 2024, Regular meeting minutes.

MEETING OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Of the City Council – City of Bakersfield

Tuesday, November 14, 2023
5:00 p.m.

City Hall North – Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301

AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT

Meeting called to order at 5:01 p.m.

1. ROLL CALL

Committee Members Present: Manpreet Kaur – Chair
Bruce Freemen
Bob Smith
City Staff Present: Gary Hallen Assistant City Manager
Julie Drimakis, City Clerk
Chris Boyle, Development Services Director
Viridiana Gallardo-King, Deputy City Attorney II
Ashley Zambrano, Deputy City Attorney II
Paul Johnson, Planning Director
Phil Burns, Building Director

2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS

a. Agenda Item Public Statements

Kevin Oliver spoke regarding item 5.b.

Staff: Committee Members:

Gary Hallen, Assistant City Manager Manpreet Kaur – Chair Bruce Freemen
Bob Smith

Special Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Tuesday, November 1, 2022, 12:00 p.m. - Page 2
b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements
None

3. ADOPT August 22, 2023, AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT

Motion by Committee Member Smith for approval of minute.

Motion unanimously approved.

4. REPORTS
None

5. DEFERRED BUSINESS

a. Update on Chronic Nuisance and Properties Progress and Consideration of Vacant Building Registry Ordinance
(Staff recommends receive and file report and provide direction) Phil Burns spoke regarding 5a.

Motion by Committee Member Smith to move item a. to full Council.

Motion unanimously approved.

b. Discussion of Short-term rental property policy
(Staff recommends receive and file report and provide direction) Gary Hallen and Dustin Reilich spoke regarding 5 b.

Motion by Committee Member Smith to bring back a Redline ordinance, including what the top 10 cities are doing.

Motion passed with Committee Member Freeman voting no.

6. NEW BUSINESS

None

7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS

Chair Kaur confirmed the cancelation of the regular planning and development meeting on 12//7/2024.

8. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m.

___________________________________
Manpreet Kaur, CHAIR

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Special Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Tuesday, November 1, 2022, 12:00 p.m. - Page 3

ATTEST:

___________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield

1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING

February 8, 2024, 5:30 p.m.

City Hall North Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue

_____________________________________________________________________

1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm

Members Present: Bob Smith

Members Absent: Manpreet Kaur, Bruce Freeman

Staff Present: Gary Hallen, Assistant City Manager, Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director, Julie Drimakis, City Clerk, Viridiana Gallardo-King, Deputy City Attorney II

2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
a. Agenda Item Public Statements
None.
b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements
None.

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. Adoption of November 14, 2023 Special Meeting Minutes No action taken due to lack of quorum.

4. REPORTS
None.

2 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
a. General Plan and Housing Element update
Development Services Director Boyle made staff comments and provided written materials.

No action taken due to lack of quorum.

1. Corrected Staff Report

2. Written materials provided by Development Services

6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Downtown Housing Capacity Analysis
Eric Bagwell, Econowest, provided comments and a PowerPoint presentation.

No action taken due to lack of quorum.

1. PowerPoint presentation

7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None.

8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

_________________________

MANPREET KAUR, CHAIR

_________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CITY CLERK

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: April 25, 2024 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Planning and Development Committee
FROM: Gregg Strakaluse, Public Works Director
Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
DATE: April 21, 2024
SUBJECT: Offsite Review Requirements - Nexus of Proportionality

Review proposed changes to Municipal Code related to a referral on offsite review requirements which is now being called the “Nexus of Proportionality.”

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction to staff on any changes recommended to the Municipal Code related to what would trigger offsite conditions on projects within the City and the downtown Core.

BACKGROUND:

This report is in response to a referral regarding a Nexus of Proportionality when requirin g off -site improvements for projects located within the City and the “Core Area” of Bakersfield as depicted on the attached map.

Discussions with both staff and developers have emphasized the importance of understanding and applying the Nexus of Proportionality principle in new development and redevelopment projects. When a development project is proposed, it can have various effects on the surrounding environment, such as increased pedestrian/vehicle traffic or strain on public services like water and sew er. Developers are required to ensure that the impact to these services do not adversely diminish the level of service to the system. Additionally, new and redevelopment projects are required to address other offsite infrastructure as defined by Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 12.36 (Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Driveway Approaches, Connecting Pavement, and Canal Fencing). This Section provides guidance on how new and redevelopment projects are currently analyzed for improvements (Section 12.36.010) and exceptions from these provisions (Section 12.36.030).

A Nexus of Proportionality approach helps ensure that a balance between the size and scope of the development project is proportional to the need for bringing offsite curbs, gutter, sidewalks, driveway approaches, connecting pavement, and canal fencing up to City Standards. Staff’s presentation will review examples of development projects and the nexus of proportionality approach.

Following collaborative discussions between the Public Works and Develo pment Services Departments, the following amendments (shown in underline and strike -out) are outlined for deliberation by the Planning and Development Committee.

12.36.010 - Construction by Builder
A. Any owner, lessee or agent constructing or arranging for the construction of any of the following:

1. A new building;

2. Any building altered or expanded in excess of 25% of the value of such building (50% in the Core Area), as indicated by the assessed valuation;

3. Any building in which there is a change in occupancy/use that necessitates a Site Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit (i.e., new owner -occupant or new tenant) where a building permit is required;

4. Any property required to be used for off -site parking as set forth in sections 17 .58.10 through

17.58.050 within the city,

shall provide concrete, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, driveway approaches, connecting pavement and canal fencing that is abutting City Right-of-Way in accordance with approved “City of Bakersfield Standard Drawings and Specifications” on file in the office of the director of public works and dedication of all required street rights-of-way. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is mandatory. The foregoing is applicable in all zones of the City as established By Title 17 of this code.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended the Planning and Development Committee deliberate on the Nexus of Proportionality concept, consider any additional amendments, and instruct Public Works staff to coordinate with the City Attorney’s Office to draft amendments to Chapter 12.36 for City Council consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT:

To be determined on a project-specific basis.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Economic Opportunity for All

ATTACHMENTS:

Core Area Map
PowerPoint Presentation

Core Area Map

PANORAMA DRIVE

NORRIS ROAD

STINE ROAD

WHITE LANE

UNION AVENUE

OFFSITE REQUIREMENTS FOR INFILL/DOWNTOWN

PROJECTS
MUNICIPAL CODE 12.36.010
Presented by: Public Works Department
April 26, 2024

1. Current Code

2. Recommendations

Current Municipal Code

12.36.010 Construction by Builder
Any owner, lessee or agent constructing or arranging for the construction of any of the following:

1. A new building;

2. Any building altered or expanded in excess of 25% of the value of such building, as indicated by the assessed valuation;

3. Any building in which there is a change in occupancy (i.e., new owner- occupant or new tenant) where a building permit is required;

4. Any property required to be used for off-site parking as set forth in sections

17.58.10 through 17.58.050 within the City,
shall provide concrete, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, driveway approaches, connecting pavement and canal fencing in accordance with approved “City of Bakersfield Standard Drawings and Specifications” on file in the office of the director of public works and dedication of all required street rights-of-way. The foregoing is applicable in all zones of the City as established By Title 17 of this code. 2Page 12 of 102

1. A New Building
3 New buildings are subject to Site
Plan Review and Grading Plan
approval.

When a new building is proposed,
the site is required to bring all
offsite improvements to current
City standards, including curb,
gutter, sidewalk, driveways,
connecting pavement, and
streetlight.

Street Light Map
4 Example: Old Kern Town
- Streetlight are not required
unless they are existing or City
has a project
- Streetlights must meet our SDM
standards ST 23 – St 23.7
- Streetlights are required on new
streets, and when existing
spacing does not meet the
spacing requirements

Street Light Spacing Map
5 - Standard Streetlight Spacing
Subdivision Standard

2. Building Alteration or Expansion
6 Note: Approximately 90% of all
Tenant Improvements do not go
through the Site Plan Review
process and are not conditioned to
do any public improvements.

Tenant Improvements
Not Subject Too Subject Too

Building Alteration and Expansion
7 How to identify the assessed value?

1. Kern Data

2. Kern County Tax Collector

3. Estimate from owner or
contractor
Example:

Core Area
Land Value = $320,000
(50% Value) = $160,000
(Improvement Value > $160,000 will kick in the Code)
Non-Core Area
Land Value = $320,000
(25% Value) = $8,000
(Improvement Value> $125,000 will kick in Code)

3. Change in Occupancy
8 Projects where the change in
occupancy is to a more intense use,
Planning will determine if a Site
Plan Review, Conditional Use
Permit, or Zone Change is required.

At that time, the site can be
required to bring all offsite
improvements to current City
standards, including curb, gutter,
sidewalk, driveways, connecting
pavement, and streetlight.

Original Use (Bank)
New Use (Restaurant)
Original Use (Bridal Shop)
New Use (Funeral Home)

4. Property for Off-Site Parking
9 Where insufficient parking is
provided on the project site, those
properties identified for off-site
parking are required to install all
public improvements along the
frontage of said parking lot.

Conclusion & Recommendation

12.36.010 Construction by Builder
Any owner, lessee or agent constructing or arranging for the construction of any of the following:

1. A new building;

2. Any building altered or expanded in excess of 25% of the value of such building (50% in the Core Area), as indicated by the assessed valuation;

3. Any building in which there is a change in occupancy/use that necessitates a Site Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit (i.e., new owner-occupant or new tenant) where a building permit is required;

4. Any property required to be used for off-site parking as set forth in sections

17.58.10 through 17.58.050 within the City,
shall provide concrete, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, driveway approaches, connecting pavement and canal fencing that is abutting City Right-of-Way in accordance with approved “City of Bakersfield Standard Drawings and Specifications” on file in the office of the director of public works and dedication of all required street rights-of-way.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is mandatory. The foregoing is applicable in all zones of the City as established By Title 17 of this code. 10 Parcels within the Core Area are
charged less impact fees(Traffic Impact
Fees) when a building permit is issued.

Fees are generally 50% reduced.

To be consistent with the Core Area,
Item #2 can be adjusted to 50% to help
promote business.

Additional language is added to final
paragraph to note location of required
improvements and add an additional
criterial for said requirements.

Core Area Map
11 PANORAMA DRIVE

NORRIS ROAD

STINE ROAD

WHITE LANE

UNION AVENUE

THANK YOU
12

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: April 25, 2024 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Planning and Development Committee
FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
DATE: April 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Downtown and Old Town Kern Parking Analysis.

[Document Description]

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Committee receive and file the analysis and consider the recommendations to assist and encourage more demand and profitability to the parking garage for a future enterprise endeavor.

BACKGROUND:

In 2023, t he City embarked on a parking demand and supply analysis for two different areas, The Downtown and Old Town Kern areas.

With the anticipation of growth in development in downtown and parking demand likely to increase in the future due to organic growth in population, but also with a goal to have new residents moving into Downtown Bakersfield (as part of the city’s densifica tion goal to have 10,000 persons in Downtown Bakersfield by 2045). Also, the movement the City is seeing by the commissioning of the High-Speed Rail system to arrive as early as 2030. For these reasons, the City commissioned this parking study to understand the demand and supply of parking in two neighborhoods in the City – Downtown and Old Town Kern. The study was conducted between May 2023 and March 2024. This report is an exposition of the methods, results and recommendations that emerged from the study.

Study Area Descriptions

Downtown Area: Bounded to the south by Truxtun Avenue, to the west by F Street, to the north by 24th Street (aligning with CA 178) and to the east by Union Avenue. Among the two regions in the study area, Downtown features a regular gridded network of streets with squar e blocks measuring about 350 feet on each side.

Old Town Kern Area: Old Town Kern (OTK) area is bounded to the north by CA 178, to the east by Beale Avenue, to the south by E Truxtun Avenue and to the west by Union Avenue. This region is divided by a Union Pacific railroad alignment with only three streets connecting both sides – Union Avenue, Baker Street and Beale Avenue.

Study Objectives
This parking study is founded on three core principles: review, study and recommend. First, the study reviews existing parking policies not only in the City but also in three peer cities in California. Parking area utilization is the primary metric for assessing parking demand in Bakersfield. During the “Study” phase, the analysis focuses on estimated future parking de mand driven by demographic changes and new developments. The study concludes with a summary of recommended policies and a compilation of best practices.

Data Collection
Parking on the streets of Bakersfield is free. Parking regulations are based on leng ths of time indicated on signs posted along streets. Further, there is one City-owned garage at the intersection of 18th Street and Eye Street. To understand the supply of parking, a field survey was conducted to count the number of on-street parking slots available on all streets in Downtown and Old Town Kern areas. Further, the number of slots in the parking garage was also determined by a field survey.

Parking Demand
Parking Demand was estimated using in person field counts on three separate occasions: a regular working day (Tuesday) between 10 AM and 3 PM; a regular Saturday between 10 AM and 3 PM; and a first Friday of the month between 6:30 PM and 8:30 PM to incorporate demand due to the “First Friday of the Month” event which is a monthly occurrence. Demand of parking was counted every 30 minutes.

Methods of Analysis
Using existing supply and demand of parking from field collected data, the study first classified road segments in the study area based not only on high demand but also the length of time that demand was high. Future demand for parking was also estimated using three methodologies: 1. new developments outside the study area bringing new vehicles into the study area; 2. densification of Downtown Bakersfield; and 3. commencement of the High-Speed Rail service. Demand was calculated for the short term (2023), medium term (2030), and long term (2045).

Peer Cities Review
In June 2023, a peer comparison analysis was conducted, and is included as Appendix A of the report.

Three peer cities were selected for review of parking policies using a compare -and-contrast approach to conduct a qualitative analysis. The cities included were Oakland, Sacramento, and Pasadena.

Results
The study found 5,738 parking slots in the study area with 59% in Downtown and 41% in Old Town Kern. 70 of these slots were ADA compliant; and 4 were for electric vehicle parking only. In addition, 502 slots were counted in the City-owned garage of which 331 were available for public use.

Parking demand was found to be concentrated in the core of Downtown Bakersfield (F Street to K Street, and Truxtun Ave to 22nd Street) where 71% of the parking slots were found occupied on a regular weekday. Overall, in the study area demand was lower at 47% occupancy. Inside the garage, parking demand was lower still at 38%.

On a regular weekend, parking utilization on the streets in the commercial core of Downtown Bakersfield (F Street to M Street between Truxtun Ave and 22nd Street) was found to peak at 40% during the lunch hour. At the same time, parking demand in the garage was only 29%. However, by the end of field study period (around 3 PM), parking utilization was nearly equal as parking utilization on the streets fe ll from 40% to around 33%.

During the First Friday of the Month event however, as the number of slots near the parking garage were restricted, utilization in the garage exceeded that of the street with nearly 75% of the slots in the garage full, while on the streets in the vicinity of the garage, only 66%.

In the future, as demand is likely to increase, the number of parking slots needed will exceed the supply by 732 slots in 2045. Demand is likely to exceed supply before 2045 if growth is higher than expected.

However, the study team found that demand was not equally distributed across the study area and that nearly all the growth was in Downtown, and none in the Old Town Kern area. The study shows also that parking demand in the Old Kern area does not exceed supply.

Recommendations

Staff received recommendations based on the study parking demand and supply for two different areas, Downtown and Old Town Kern to identify whether the demand could justify the creation of an enterprise fund. After review of the Bakersfield Parking Study – Downtown and Old Town Kern (Ardurra, 2024), the consultants have identified the following conclusions/recommendations:

1. At this time, data does not indicate that demand could sustain the creation of a parking enterprise fund.

2. Develop a continuous parki ng data collection plan to monitor parking needs for the Downtown and Old Town Kern Areas to identify when demand data would sustain a parking enterprise fund for either or both areas.

3. Restrict street parking for up to at least one block around the parking garage. Dedicate street parking in this area to ride -share pick -ups/drop-offs, loading/unloading of freight and emergency vehicle use only.

4. Provide some additional electric vehicle parking slots enabled with recharging facilities to be at par with the density of charging stations in peer cities.

5. Introduction of parking fees at least at par with the parking garage with in the area bounded by Truxtun Avenue, 22nd Street, F Street and K Street.

6. Increase enforcement of parking within the area bounded by Truxtun Avenue, 22nd Street, F Street and M Street.

7. Increase garage parking fee to $1.25 per hour for a maximum of $12.50 per day to align with inflation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Parking Study PowerPoint Presentation

2. 2024 Parking Study

BAKERSFIELD

PARKING STUDY
Status Update Meeting
April 25, 2023

AGENDA
Supply of Parking Spaces
Demand of Parking: On Street &
Garage
Peer Cities Review
Future Demand Estimation Method
Future Demand Results
Recommendations
Questions and Discussion

OVERVIEW
Division of Area in Zones
ZONE
3A
ZONE
3B
F St
Truxtun Ave
24th St
Union Ave
ZONE
1 F St
Truxtun Ave
22nd St
K St
ZONE
2 F St
Truxtun Ave
22nd St
M St
3 Page 28 of 102

SUPPLY OF PARKING SPACES
Regular ADA EV Total % Total
Zone 1 1,035 31 0 1,066 19%
Zone 2 1,421 33 0 1,454 25%
Zone 3A 3,349 50 4 3,403 59%
Zone 3B 2,315 20 0 2,335 41%
TOTAL 5,664 70 4 5,738 100%
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3A Zone 3B
18TH AND EYE ST GARAGE:
▪ 502 slots are available for parking in
the garage.
▪ 171 are reserved for city fleet vehicles
(5th floor and above)
▪ Regular Public-Use Parking Slots: 315 +
ADA/EV Public-Use: 16
4 Page 29 of 102
On Street
Supply Max Dem Occupancy
Zone 1 1,066 757 71%
Zone 2 1,454 960 66%
Zone 3A 3,403 1,784 52%
Zone 3B 2,335 954 41%
TOTAL 5,738 2722* 47%
12 Noon
KEY FINDINGS:
▪ Demand is concentrated in the Zone 1 area. Peak at 12 Noon ▪ On-street occupancy increases faster than it reduces. ▪ Zone 3B/Old Town Kern sees only ~40% occupancy at peak.

DEMAND OF ON STREET PARKING
Weekday (10am – 3pm)
5 Page 30 of 102
7 PM
▪ Max Utilization is 70%.
▪ On-street occupancy is largely
consistent between 7 - 8 PM.
▪ Demand is concentrated around 3
east-west streets – 18th, 19th, and 20th
Streets

DEMAND OF ON STREET PARKING
Friday (6:30pm – 8:30pm)
Saturday (10am – 3pm)
6 12:30 PM
▪ Max Utilization is 40%.
▪ Parking Demand is distributed across
Zone 2. Peaks at 12:30 PM
▪ On-street occupancy increases
slower than it decreases. Peak
demand is about 50%

DEMAND OF GARAGE PARKING (OCCUPIED SPACES)
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10:00
AM
10:30
AM
11:00
AM
11:30
AM
12:00
PM
12:30
PM
1:00
PM
1:30
PM
2:00
PM
2:30
PM
3:00
PM
Weekday (Tuesday)
Garage
On Street, Zone 1
On Street, All Study Area
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM
First Friday (Event Day)
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10:00
AM
10:30
AM
11:00
AM
11:30
AM
12:00
PM
12:30
PM
1:00
PM
1:30
PM
2:00
PM
2:30
PM
3:00
PM
Weekend (Saturday)
38% 65% 70% 68% 29% 42%
No lack of parking demand.

Not attracted to the garage.

Demand can be pushed to
garage.

On Street first. Garage
second.

Stable demand.

Not attracted to the garage.

BAKERSFIELD SACRAMENTO OAKLAND PASADENA

POPULATION
Downtown/CBD 7,045 11,223 24,222 23,556
Density, per sq. mi. 2,414 8,714 9,491 12,568

HOURLY INCOME
City $11.4 $13.0 $15.7 $19.8
Downtown/CBD $18.8 $35.2 $37.4 $35.6

MEANS OF COMMUTE TO WORK
Carpool 11% 3% 4% 5%
Transit 5% 6% 21% 5%
Bike/Walk 2% 34% 14% 15%
Legend: MAXIMUM MINIMUM
PEER CITIES REVIEW RESULTS | Cities Compared
8 Page 33 of 102
▪ PARKING DEMAND GENERATION ▪ PARKING DEMAND DISTRIBUTION Future
Parking
Demand
Existing
Demand
Growing
New
Construction

OUTSIDE
Study Area
New
Construction
INSIDE Study
Area
High Speed
Railway
Station
Additional
Parking in
Garage
Additional
Parking on
Street
Distribute in
Downtown
and Old
Town Kern
Distribute
along each
Road
Segment
Parking
Distribution
9 FUTURE DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Two Aspects – Generation and Distribution

FUTURE PARKING DEMAND GENERATION
Other Studies
Basis for Estimating New
Population Inside Study Area Bakersfield 2045 Downtown Capacity Study Persons 10,000 6,000
Households 3,125 3,600
% In Downtown 100% 50%
Study Area HH 3,125 1,800
Medium Density Parking Demand 4,178 (MAX) 2,403 (MID)
Low Density Parking Demand 1,940 (MIN)
▪ Expected Parking Demand: (MIN + 4*MID + MAX)/6 = 2,622 ▪ All Downtown Capacity Study demand is concentrated in Downtown area → All demand is expected to come from Downtown, and not from Old Town Kern. 10 Page 35 of 102
▪ Estimated Completion 2030
▪ Read Along With: Making Downtown
Bakersfield Plan 2045
− Major areas of Infill: Chester Ave, Eye St
− Spillover Effect: K St, 17th St, Wall St,
18th St, 19th St
▪ Additional Demand Assumption:
− Chester Ave: +10%
− Wall St: +5% (since it is perpendicular
to the axis of primary development)
− All Spillover Effect Streets: +5%
− Garage: +5%
11 FUTURE PARKING DEMAND GENERATION
High Speed Rail Station

▪ SHORT TERM (2023) ▪ MEDIUM TERM (2030) ▪ LONG TERM (2045) 12 ZONE
1-2

▪ SHORT TERM (2023) ▪ MEDIUM TERM (2030) ▪ LONG TERM (2045) 13 ZONE
3A-3B

FUTURE DEMAND FINDINGS
Compared
Capacity Existing
Demand
Short Term
Dema , ’
Mid-Term
Dema , ’ 0
Long-Term
Dema , ’ 5
Zone 1 1,058 737 890 1,889 2,172
Zone 2 1,454 959 1,112 2,443 2,810
Zone 3A 3,403 1,780 1,933 4,539 5,220
Zone 3B 2,335 942 942 1,087 1,250
Study Area 5,738 2,722 (+3,016) 2,875 (+2,863) 5,626 (+112) 6,470 (-732) Garage 331
+171 (Contract) 144 155 597 665
14 Page 39 of 102
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000

EXISTING
DEMAND

SHORT TERM
DEMAND, 2023

MID TERM
DEMAND, 2030

LONG TERM
DEMAND, 2045
Growth and Demand – by Zones
DOWNTOWN/ZONE 3A OLD TOWN KERN/ZONE 3B
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000

EXISTING
DEMAND

SHORT TERM
DEMAND, 2023

MID TERM
DEMAND, 2030

LONG TERM
DEMAND, 2045
Growth and Demand – Study Area
Low Growth Expected Growth High Growth
Study Area On-
Street Capacity
Zone 3A On-
Street Capacity
Zone 3B On-
Street Capacity
15 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Cases Compared

•Incremental pricing
Strategy
•Merchant Voucher
Program
Parking Fees
•Increase number and
distribution of ADA
and EV Parking
•Income-based
Parking Fees
Reduction
Equity Policies
•Concentrate in Zones
1 and 2
•Remove Time
Restrictions
•No Parking in Zone 1
during Special Events
Parking
Enforcement
•App-based Fees
Payment
•Equipment for Parking
Surveillance
•Minimize on-street
parking near Garage
Parking
Demand
Management

RECOMMENDATIONS

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
▪ Potential Solution Strategies are based in the following objectives:
− Better Utilization of the Downtown Parking Garage
− Finding ways to monetize parking → Create a consolidated fund to outsource parking − Densify Downtown Bakersfield to 10,000 persons + Futureproofing − Continue to grow persons coming into Downtown and economic recovery of the area 16 $

RECOMMENDATIONS
Parking Fees
• Fees in ZONE 1
• No Street
Parking around
Garage
• Increase fees
in line with
inflation
Equity
• EV Parking
Stations should
have charging
ports.
• Increase long-
term parking
fees.
• Create a
R sid n s’
Parking Pass
system
Enforcement
• Time-based
parking to
time-scale
parking.
• Strict
Enforcement in
Zone 2
• From parking
Enforcement
to parking
Security
Demand
Management
• Continuous
Parking Data
Collection Plan
• Contract with
phone-based
apps for fee
collection.
• Encourage
other modes of
transportation
• Communicate
with Special
Events
organizers

QUESTIONS?

2024
Bakersfield Parking
Study – Downtown and
Old Town Kern

FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED BY ARDURRA
3/27/2024

i
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ES-1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 City of Bakersfield Profile ................................................................................................ 1

1.1.1 Downtown ................................................................................................................. 2

1.1.2 Old Town Kern .......................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Study Objectives .............................................................................................................. 5

1.3 Report Design .................................................................................................................. 5

2. Literature Review: Previous and Ongoing Studies ................................................................ 7

2.1 2018 Parking Study ............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Bakersfield 2045 General Plan .......................................................................................... 8

2.3 ECONorthwest Bakersfield Housing Study ......................................................................... 9

3. Peer Comparison .................................................................................................................. 11

4. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Study Area Zone Demarcation .......................................................................................... 15

4.1.1 Zone 1 .......................................................................................................................... 16

4.1.2 Zone 2 .......................................................................................................................... 17

4.1.3 Zone 3A ....................................................................................................................... 17

4.1.4 Zone 3B ....................................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Existing Parking Utilization ................................................................................................ 20

4.2.1 Garage ......................................................................................................................... 20

4.3 Future Parking Estimation ................................................................................................. 21

5. Results ................................................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Existing Parking Supply ..................................................................................................... 24

5.1.1 On-Street Parking Supply ............................................................................................ 24

5.1.2 Garage Parking Supply ............................................................................................... 26

5.2 Existing Parking Utilization ................................................................................................ 26

5.2.1 Weekday ...................................................................................................................... 26

5.2.2 Special Case I – Friday Evening ................................................................................. 28

5.2.2 Special Case II – Saturdays ....................................................................................... 29

5.2.3 In Garage Parking Demand ........................................................................................ 31

5.3 Hotspot Identification ........................................................................................................ 33

5.4 Future Parking Utilization .................................................................................................. 36

ii
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

5.4.1 Parking Demand Sensitivity ....................................................................................... 38

6. Policy Discussions ................................................................................................................ 41

6.1 Parking Fees .................................................................................................................. 41

6.1.1 Zone 1 Parking Fee ..................................................................................................... 41

6.1.2 Parking Fee Escalation ............................................................................................... 41

6.1.3 On-Street Parking Near Parking Garage .................................................................... 41

6.2 Equity Policies ................................................................................................................ 42

6.2.1 Additional EV Charging Station Equipped Parking Slots .......................................... 42

6.2.2 Long Term Parking Fee ............................................................................................... 42

6.2.3 Residents’ Parking Passes ......................................................................................... 43

6.3 Parking Enforcement ..................................................................................................... 43

6.3.1 Telescopic Parking ...................................................................................................... 44

6.3.2 Reduction in Enforcement Zone/Parking Security ................................................... 45

6.4 Parking Demand Management .................................................................................... 45

6.4.1 Continuous Parking Data Collection Plan ................................................................. 45

6.4.3 Develop Alternative Modes of Transportation .......................................................... 46

6.4.4 Special Events Handling ............................................................................................. 47

7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 49

List of Figures
Figure 1: Incorporated Cities in California .................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Downtown Bakersfield ................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Angled parking in Downtown ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 4: Old Town Kern ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 5: No Striped Parking in Old Town Kern ............................................................................ 5 Figure 6: Goals and Objectives of the Study ................................................................................ 5 Figure 7: Utilization of Select Private Parking Lots ...................................................................... 8 Figure 8: Proposed Route of the HSR through Bakersfield ......................................................... 9 Figure 9: Parcels with positive RLV ............................................................................................. 10 Figure 10: Peer Comparison Cities ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 11: Various Spatial Boundaries for Special Consideration ............................................ 16 Figure 12: Zone 1 Boundary with respect to the Study Area .................................................... 17 Figure 13: Zone 2 Boundary with respect to the Study Area .................................................... 17 Figure 14: Zone 3A Boundary with respect to Study Area ........................................................ 18 Figure 15: Zone 3B with respect to Study Area ......................................................................... 18 Figure 16: Analysis Segments in the Study Area ....................................................................... 19

iii
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Figure 17: Street View of the City-owned Garage. ...................................................................... 21 Figure 18: General Parking Demand Generation and Distribution Model ............................... 22 Figure 19: Supply of On-Street Parking ...................................................................................... 25 Figure 20: Supply of ADA-Compliant Parking Slots .................................................................... 26 Figure 21: Demand for Parking, Noon, Study Area .................................................................... 27 Figure 22: On-Street Parking Demand by Time ......................................................................... 28 Figure 23: Demand for On-Street Parking, FFM Event .............................................................. 28 Figure 24: Demand Growth in Zone 1 during FFM Events ........................................................ 29 Figure 25: Demand for On-Street Parking on Saturdays ........................................................... 30 Figure 26: Demand for On-Street Parking on Saturday ............................................................. 31 Figure 27: Hotspots in Study Area, Weekday ............................................................................. 34 Figure 28: Hotspots on Friday Evening (FFM Event) .................................................................. 35 Figure 29: Hotspots in Zone 2 on Saturdays.............................................................................. 35 Figure 30: Medium Term Future Growth (2030) ........................................................................ 37 Figure 31: Long-Term Future Growth (2045) .............................................................................. 38 Figure 32: Parking Demand in Study Area - Sensitivity Analysis .............................................. 39 Figure 33: Sensitivity Analysis Results, by Zone ........................................................................ 40 Figure 34: Time Regulations in Bakersfield Study Area ............................................................ 44 Figure 35: Telescopic Parking Regimes in Sacramento ............................................................ 45 Figure 36: Bike rack in public right of way in Pasadena, CA ..................................................... 47

List of Tables
Table 1: Comparative Table of select Socio-Economic Variables .............................................. 12 Table 2: Key Takeaways from the Peer Comparison Memo ...................................................... 13 Table 3: Categories of Hotspots .................................................................................................. 20 Table 4: Increase in Parking Demand due to HSR Construction .............................................. 22 Table 5: Supply of On-Street Parking .......................................................................................... 24 Table 6: Parking Demand in Garage, Weekday .......................................................................... 31 Table 7: Garage Utilization on Fridays and Saturdays, compared to Zone 1............................ 32 Table 8: Reduction in Utilization post-Max Utilization, Garage versus Zone 1......................... 33 Table 9: Future Conditions Demand in Study Area, by Zone ..................................................... 36 Table 10: Future Demand Estimation due to New Development .............................................. 36 Table 11: Summary of policy and practices. .............................................................................. 50

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Peer Comparison Report
Appendix B: Future Parking Estimation Methodology

ES-1
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Executive Summary
Introduction: Bakersfield is one of the largest cities in California, especially among inland cities. It has a growing population that is largely car dependent and each of those vehicles demand parking. The City of Bakersfield (the City) expects parking demand to increase in the future due to organic growth in population, new residents moving into Downtown Bakersfield (as part of the city’s densification goal to have 10,000 persons in Downtown Bakersfield by 2045), and the commissioning of the High-Speed Rail system in 2030. For these reasons, the City commissioned this parking study to understand the demand and supply of parking in two neighborhoods in the City – Downtown and Old Town Kern. The study was conducted between May 2023 and March 2024. This report is an exposition of the methods, results and recommendations that emerged from the study.

Data Collection: Parking on the streets of Bakersfield is free for any length of time. Parking regulations are based on lengths of time indicated on signs posted along streets. Further, there is one City-owned garage at the intersection of 18th Street and Eye Street. To understand the supply of parking, a field survey was conducted to count the number of on- street parking slots available on all streets in Downtown and Old Town Kern. Further, the number of slots in the parking garage were also estimated using a field survey.

Demand of parking was estimated using field counts on these occasions: a regular working day (Tuesday) between 10 AM and 3 PM; a regular Saturday between 10 AM and 3 PM; and a first Friday of the month between 6:30 PM and 8:30 PM to incorporate demand due to the “First Friday of the Month” event which is a monthly occurrence. Demand of parking was counted every 30 minutes.

Methods: Using existing supply and demand of parking from field collected data, the study first classified road segments in the study area based not only on high demand but also the length of time that demand was high. Parking policies in Bakersfield were compared against those of three peer cities – Sacramento, Pasadena and Oakland – to identify best practices.

Future demand for parking was also estimated using three methodologies: 1. new developments outside the study area bringing new vehicles into the study area; 2. densification of Downtown Bakersfield; and 3. commencement of the High-Speed Rail service. Demand was calculated for the short term (2023), medium term (2030), and long term (2045). All demand was distributed to the road segments using statistical methods described in Section 4.

Results: The study found 5,738 parking slots in the study area with 59% in Downtown and 41% in Old Town Kern. 70 of these slots were ADA compliant; and 4 were for electric vehicle parking only. In addition, 502 slots were found in the City-owned garage of which 331 were available for public use.

Parking demand was found to be concentrated in the core of Downtown Bakersfield (F Street to K Street, and Truxtun Ave to 22nd Street) where 71% of the parking slots were found occupied on a regular weekday. Overall, in the study area demand was lower at 47% occupancy. Inside the garage, parking demand was lower still at 38%.

ES-2
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
On a regular weekend, parking utilization on the streets in the commercial core of Downtown Bakersfield (F Street to M Street between Truxtun Ave and 22nd Street) was found to peak at 40% during the lunch hour. At the same time, parking demand in the garage was only 29%.

However, by the end of field study period (around 3 PM), parking utilization was nearly equal as parking utilization on the streets fell from 40% to around 33%.

During the First Friday of the Month event however, as the number of slots near the parking garage were restricted, utilization in the garage exceeded that on the street with nearly 75% of the slots in the garage full, while on the streets in the vicinity of the garage, only 66%.

In the future, as demand is likely to increase, the number of parking slots needed will exceed the supply by 732 slots in 2045. Demand is likely to exceed supply before 2045 if growth is higher than expected. However, the study team found that demand was not equally distributed across the study area and that nearly all the growth was in Downtown, and none in the Old Town Kern area. The study shows also that parking demand in the Old Kern area does not exceed supply.

Recommendations: Based on the analysis and results and a review of policies in three peer cities, the following proposals are recommended for parking in the study area. # Policy Aspect Suggested Policy

1.1 Parking Fees Introduction of parking fees at least at par with the parking garage with Zone 1

1.2 Parking Fees Restrict street parking for up to at least one block around the parking garage. Dedicate all street parking in this area to ride-share pick-ups/drop-offs, loading/unloading of freight and emergency vehicle use only.

1.3 Parking Fees Increase garage parking fee to $1.25 per hour for a maximum of $12.50 per day to align with inflation.

2.1 Parking
Equity
City must add at least 40 more electric vehicle parking slots enabled with recharging facilities to be at par with the density of charging stations in peer cities

2.2 Parking
Equity
Introduce a premium parking rate category for long-term garage parking to reflect the true cost of providing extended parking services.

2.3 Parking
Equity
Establish a Residents Parking Pass program offering reduced rates for overnight parking in the garage.

3.1 Parking
Enforcement
Reconsider time-base parking to telescopic parking with three parking regimes, each with their escalating fee structures capped at a maximum amount. (Suggested maximum hourly cap is $3.75)

3.2 Parking
Enforcement
Enforce parking in Zone 2 only.

ES-3
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
# Policy Aspect Suggested Policy

3.3 Parking
Enforcement
Consider shifting focus from parking enforcement to parking security.

4.1 Parking
Demand
Management
Develop a continuous parking data collection plan.

4.2 Parking
Demand
Management
Contract with a mobile phone-based application system for managing parking demand and collecting parking fees.

4.3 Parking
Demand
Management
Collaborate with all interested parties to encourage alternative modes of transport like HOV trips, pedestrian trips, ride-sharing services, bike trips and transit.

4.4 Parking
Demand
Management
Regularly communicate with organizers of special events to plan for big events. Strategies could include providing high-frequency buses to/from the event venue, shuttles to/from parking lots (both public and private), event passes.

1 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

1. Introduction
Bakersfield is one of the largest cities in southern California and one of the most important centers of population and economy in the interior parts of the state. The City of Bakersfield (the City) aims to densify and become a transit hub. Looking toward the future, the City commissioned this study to assess both current and anticipated parking requirements in the urban core of the city, focusing on Downtown and Old Town Kern areas. This report documents the results of that study by summarizing the context, methods, and outcomes.

During this study, the team regularly communicated with city officials and informed them about the outcomes.

1.1 City of Bakersfield Profile
Located in Kern County in the southern part of California, Bakersfield is a developing city with a population of around 400,000. The City is experiencing significant growth, marked by a notable increase in traffic and a high demand for parking facilities. The City is traversed by major transportation routes including four state highways – CA 58, CA 99, CA 178, and CA 204 – facilitating movement of freight and people, enhancing accessibility and connectivity with major population centers like Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and more. Figure 1 shows the location of Bakersfield in the context of other cities in California.

Per the High-Speed Rail Station Area Vision Plan, with the construction of a high-speed rail (HSR) station on Golden State Avenue, the City will be transformed into an important railway transportation hub. The downtown core of Bakersfield serves as the city's economic hub.

Given the lack of uniform parking standards in the City, it is necessary to identify locations where parking demand exceeds available spaces and to examine deficiencies in the City's parking policies and management.

2 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 1: Incorporated Cities in California
Within the City boundary, the study is concentrated around two neighborhoods: Downtown and Old Town Kern (OTK). The following subsections describe the nature of development in these neighborhoods.

1.1.1 Downtown
Occupying half of the study area, Downtown Bakersfield is bounded to the south by Truxtun Avenue, to the west by F Street, to the north by 24th Street (aligning with CA 178) and to the east by Union Avenue. Figure 2 shows the area of Downtown Bakersfield. Among the two regions in the study area, Downtown features a fairly regular gridded network of streets with square blocks measuring about 350 feet on each side.

Downtown Bakersfield is divided on the east side by Kern Island Canal between R Street and V Street. Along this canal lie the Federal Courthouse and the Mill Creek Park/Bakersfield Museum of Art complex – two significant traffic attractors in the area. The only city-run parking garage is also located in this region at the intersection of 18th Street and Eye Street.

Downtown Bakersfield serves as the center for economic and recreational activities, hosting the Fox Theater at the intersection of 20th Street and H Street and the Mechanics Bank Arena at the intersection of Truxtun Avenue and N Street.

3 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 2: Downtown Bakersfield
One of the distinctive features of parking in Downtown Bakersfield is the presence of diagonal parking along several major streets. Figure 3 shows an example of a diagonal parking layout. This type of parking arrangement increases the capacity of the same block of road and allows more vehicles to park. Among the two areas, only Downtown features painted and well-maintained pavement markings.

Figure 3: Angled parking in Downtown

1.1.2 Old Town Kern
Old Town Kern (OTK) is the other study area, bounded to the north by CA 178, to the east by Beale Avenue, to the south by E Truxtun Avenue and to the west by Union Avenue. This region

DOWNTOWN BAKERSFIELD

4 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
is divided by a Union Pacific railroad alignment with only three streets– Union Avenue, Baker Street and Beale Avenue. Of these, only Baker Street features an at-grade railroad crossing.

OTK lacks a regular grid pattern, characterized instead by a mix of residential and industrial land uses. Notable traffic generators include the Bakersfield City School District office at the intersection of Baker Street and Niles Street and the Kern County Youth Center at Niles Street and King Street. Figure 4 shows the OTK area covered in this study.

Figure 4: Old Town Kern
Unlike Downtown, OTK lacks well-maintained pavement markings to indicate parking slots along street sides. Several surface parking lots, associated with private businesses, exist in this area. The City does not own any garage parking facility in OTK. Figure 5 shows an example of on-street parking in OTK.

OLD TOWN
KERN

5 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 5: No Striped Parking in Old Town Kern

1.2 Study Objectives
This parking study is founded on three core principles: review, study and recommend. First, the study reviews existing parking policies not only in the City but also in three peer cities in California. Parking area utilization is the primary metric for assessing parking demand in Bakersfield. During the “Study” phase, the analysis focuses on estimated future parking demand driven by demographic changes and new developments. The study concludes with a summary of recommended policies and a compilation of best practices. Figure 6 shows this information diagrammatically.

Figure 6: Goals and Objectives of the Study

1.3 Report Design
This report is structured into sections, leading to the final recommendations. Section 1 introduces the report and sets the context for the content that follows. Section 2 reviews all previous and ongoing studies that have been analyzed and incorporated into this analysis. •Existing Parking policies
•Utilization of Parking
Garage
•Policies in peer cities
•Demand from businesses
Review
•Parking demand for a
growing population
•Enforcement and
maintenance strategies
Study
•Parking infrastructure and
management policies
•Optimal use of parking
space for now and future
with focus on affordability,
and walkability
Recommend

6 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Section 3 briefly discusses a review of three peer cities: Sacramento, Oakland and Pasadena. Section 4 details the methods used in assessing parking in Bakersfield. Section 5 focuses on the findings. Section 6 addresses policy recommendations and Section 7 concludes the report with final recommendations.

Prior to this report, two short memos were written: one on a peer comparison of three cities and another on the methodology for estimating future parking demand in Bakersfield. Both memos are attached as appendices to this report’s end. All other significant communications and documentation are also included as attachments.

7 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

2. Literature Review: Previous and Ongoing Studies
This section reviews previous and ongoing studies related to parking in the City. Three reports have been included. It summarizes the findings from these reports and uses them as the foundation for further analysis, building upon the work already completed. The City provided the 2018 Parking Study and the ECONorthwest Housing Study, while the Bakersfield 2045 Report is available to the public.

2.1 2018 Parking Study
The City commissioned a Downtown Bakersfield Parking Study in 2018 to assess parking demand within two distinct areas: one between F and Q Streets and Truxtun Avenue and 24th Streets, and the other between F Street and Chester Avenue, and 24th and 28th Streets. The study analyzed parking capacity, regulations and utilization in these areas, identified issues and estimated future parking demands before suggesting strategic improvements. Key findings from the report are below:

1. Field observations conducted from October 2017 through January 2018

2. Weekday parking typically peaked between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.

3. Parking during the First Friday of the Month event was notably higher than on other weekdays or weekends.

4. Observation times ranged from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays, with the First Friday of the Month event specifically observed between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.

5. Recommendations on Parking Strategies:
a. Introduce a Parking Shuttle Service connecting downtown with major activity centers such as schools, parking lots and the courthouse. b. Establish a Business Improvement District to organize and coordinate private parking lots to increase shared parking availability.
c. Form an advisory body for downtown parking management consisting of elected and appointed members.
d. Implement a demand-responsive parking pricing strategy for on-street and off- street parking using the latest technology.
e. Promote the use of transit and High-Occupancy Vehicles to decrease parking demand.
f. Enhance enforcement efficiency through the use of license plate reading technology.
g. Maintain consistent parking data collection to accurately estimate turnover rates.

Importantly, the study estimates the utilization of select private parking lots, with Figure 7 showing the peak utilization detailed in the report.

8 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 7: Utilization of Select Private Parking Lots
Source: April 2 – Final Bakersfield Downtown Parking Study (Quantum Consulting, 4/5/2018)

2.2 Bakersfield 2045 General Plan
The Bakersfield General Plan – Existing Conditions and Background Report, also known as “RISE,” was completed in August 2022. This report offers a current overview of the City and its community, emphasizing potential future changes. A key insight from this report is the anticipated growth in housing that is expected in the Bakersfield area. The data point used from this report was the City’s plan to house an additional 10,000 persons in Downtown Bakersfield by 2030.

Further, the report confirmed the planned route and development of a High-Speed Rail (HSR) line through the City. Figure 8 shows a map of the area with the proposed HSR route.

9 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 8: Proposed Route of the HSR through Bakersfield

2.3 ECONorthwest Bakersfield Housing Study
ECONorthwest conducted a Bakersfield Downtown Capacity Analysis for the Bakersfield Economic and Community Development Department in 2019. The study found that while the City aimed to accommodate 10,000 new residents, only 3,600 housing units yielded a positive Residual Land Value (RLV), indicating these units could be constructed without requiring subsidies from the government or other investment sources. This data has been instrumental in estimating future parking demand for the current study. The analysis excluded housing east of Union Avenue, focusing solely on potential new housing information in the downtown area. Figure 9 shows the distribution of housing units with positive RLV (called “feasible”) in green.

10 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 9: Parcels with positive RLV

Parcels in zones that
allow for medium
density
development or that
were under 3 acres
in size were more
likely to be
financially feasible.

Exhibit 8. Positive and Negative
Residual Land Values by Parcel
Source: ECONorthwest

11 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

3. Peer Comparison
In June 2023, a peer comparison analysis was shared, and is included as Appendix A in this report. This section summarizes that analysis. Three peer cities were selected for review of parking policies using a compare-and-contrast approach to conduct a qualitative analysis.

The cities included were Oakland, Sacramento, and Pasadena. Figure 10 provides an overview of all the cities and the salient reasons for their selection.

Figure 10: Peer Comparison Cities
Oakland was selected for its population size, which is closest to Bakersfield's, although it notably differs as a coastal city. Pasadena, while similar to Bakersfield in terms of treasury size, contrasts in both population and area. Sacramento was included based on the City of Bakersfield's recommendation as a model for emulation and shares the characteristic of being an inland city with Bakersfield.

Despite the lack of formal parking studies from Sacramento, at least two reports from both Oakland and Pasadena were reviewed. Three of the five reports reviewed were specifically focused on Downtown or Central Business District conditions, one addressed a specific neighborhood (Chinatown in Oakland), and another was a citywide study (in Pasadena).

The cities were analyzed using a rubric that considered three core aspects: People, Policies and Processes.

1. People: This category encompasses entities that contribute to parking demand, including businesses, event venues and public spaces, as well as individuals who utilize parking slots and parking facilities. It also covers agencies responsible for supplying, enforcing and managing parking resources.

2. Policies: This includes the rules by which parking is governed. These rules are often made by city governments in compliance with local, state and federal laws. These policies aim to optimize parking utilization and ensure equitable access for all downtown users. Additionally, policies may influence secondary effects, such as the densification of downtown areas.
•Mid-range
Population
•Inland City
•Mid-sized
Budget
Bakersfield
•Nearness of
Population
•Coastal City
Oakland
•Recommended
through City
consultation
•Inland City
Sacramento
•Closeness of
Government
Funds
•Opposite
Perspective -
Population and
Area
Pasadena

12 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

3. Processes: This includes the methods through which parking regulations are enforced and the procedures for obtaining parking permits. It also involves the coordination between parking facilities and adjacent residential areas, as well as the mechanisms for parking payments.

Table 1 shows the distribution of various socio-economic metrics measured for all four cities.

Table 1: Comparative Table of select Socio-Economic Variables

METRIC BAKERSFIELD SACRAMENTO OAKLAND PASADENA
Total Downtown/CBD
Population1 7,045 11,223 24,222 23,556
Area of CBD, sq mi 2.92 1.29 2.55 1.87
Population Density,
persons per sq mi 2,414 8,714 9,491 12,568
Total Employment2 1,713 5,458 12,276 13,050
City, Hourly Income $11.43 $13.01 $15.66 $19.84
Downtown, Median
Hourly Income3 $18.78 $35.19 $37.43 $35.64
Percent Transit Users4 5% 6% 21% 5%
Percent Carpool
Users5 11% 3% 4% 5%
Percent Bike+Walk6 0% + 2% = 2% 5% + 29% =
34%
2% + 12%
=14%
2% + 13%
=15%

Source:
1 US Decennial Census 2020
2 Estimate of Persons Employed in Civilian labor Force in 2021 from American Community Survey 2021 Table B23025 3 American Community Survey 2021 Table S2001. Average annual work hours = 2,080 hours. 4 American Community Survey 2021 Table B08301
5 American Community Survey 2021 Table B08301
6 American Community Survey 2021 Table B08301

13 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Some noticeable points from the peer comparison are provided below in Table 2.

Table 2: Key Takeaways from the Peer Comparison Memo
# Aspect Salient Points
1 Demographics Downtown Bakersfield's anticipated population of 10,000 is seen as reasonable, with its current population density significantly lower than that of the most densely populated peer city, Pasadena.

Income levels in Downtown Bakersfield are about half those in peer cities, suggesting sensitivity to parking fees among residents.

Bakersfield had the lowest rate of transit, and bike/walk commuters but the highest rate of carpool users highlighting opportunities for incentives to encourage alternative commuting methods.
2 Geography and Built
Environment
Only Oakland has another water body running through Downtown.

All cities have railroad lines running through the Downtown region.

Only Bakersfield has heavy railroad lines, all other cities have light rail/subways. Oakland’s BART lines are underground.

However, these constraints, while similar in function, vary in form and that creates different outcomes.
3 Parking Fee
On-street parking in peer cities is metered and garage parking generally costs more than in Bakersfield.

When adjusted for per capita income, Bakersfield’s garage parking fee is lower than comparable parking in peer cities.

All cities offer discount programs for residents and businesses.

Creating programs that generate revenue is useful, especially when accompanied by the creation of a Parking Benefit District. 4 Parking Time
Regulation
Cities are moving away from time-regulated parking and towards a tiered parking structure.

Areas immediately around parking garages have shorter time regulations to incentivize the use of the garage.

Consolidating time regulations increases ease of compliance and enforcement.

14 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
# Aspect Salient Points
5 Alternative Fuel
Parking
Peer cities have a higher number of Electric Charging Stations (ECG) which are distributed throughout their downtown areas.

ECS are also located in peer cities near transit stations to allow ease of movement across various modes of transportation.

As the sale of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) increases, construction of new ECS will become indispensable for the growth of the area. Per the California Energy Commission, the increase in sales of BEVs in Bakersfield has been exponential.
6 Special Events
Handling
Peer cities have programs to manage high foot traffic in concentrated areas.

Nearly all venues in peer cities are accessible by rail transit lines (within 0.5 mi of transit stations). Pasadena also runs shuttle buses to ferry people from lots/garages to businesses.

Design of specific parking plans for each venue helps provide information to patrons about their choices and costs.

For a more detailed analysis, please refer to Appendix A at the end of this document.

15 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

4. Methodology
This section outlines the methodology employed to estimate current parking utilization within the study area. The first section shows the method used in estimating the four zones that will be used as the spatial building blocks of the study area. A summary of the existing and projected future parking utilization follows. Only public on street parking, and 18th Street Parking lot were included in this analysis; no privately owned parking lots were analyzed as part of this analysis.7

4.1 Study Area Zone Demarcation
The entire study area comprising Downtown and Old Town Kern (OTK) – as outlined in Sections 1.1.1, and 1.1.2, was further divided into four zones. Downtown and OTK were separated by Union Avenue, with zones assigned numbers in ascending order based on their respective sizes. Figure 11 shows the criteria used to determine the boundaries of these zones within Downtown Bakersfield.

Several boundaries, drawn from multiple sources, were overlaid to delineate the study area.

The green boundary indicates the location of the First Friday of the Month Event, which takes place in the evenings on the first Friday of every month in Downtown Bakersfield. Therefore, an influence of the event's parking demand is marked in purple and labeled "FRIDAY." For the analysis of weekend parking, specifically on Saturdays, the boundary of the core shopping district was created using Google Maps’ land-use styles. This was labeled “Downtown Commercial Core per Google Maps”. An area influenced by Saturday parking demands is highlighted in red and labeled “SATURDAY”.

To ensure consistency with previous findings the “FRIDAY” and “SATURDAY” areas were compared with the “Confined Area for Special Events” identified in the 2018 Parking Study.

The comparisons showed that the extent of these areas generally aligns.

It is important to note that both the “FRIDAY” and “SATURDAY” parking influence areas are entirely within Downtown Bakersfield.

7 Reasons for limiting study to public parking: 1. There are several private parking lots which gaining access to which would have been a time-consuming process; 2. Since they are privately held, any unforeseen change in regulation restricting their public use would have rendered conclusions from this report unpredictable.

16 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 11: Various Spatial Boundaries for Special Consideration

4.1.1 Zone 1
Zone 1, also identified as "FRIDAY" in Figure 11, was specifically designated for gathering parking data during the First Friday of the Month event from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. This data collection timeframe was based on findings from the 2018 Parking Study. Located entirely within Downtown Bakersfield, Zone 1 encompasses thirty city blocks in the southwest corner of the study area, bounded by Truxtun Avenue, 22nd Street, F Street and K Street. Figure 12 delineates Zone 1’s boundary, which includes a publicly held parking lot.

Data collection occurred at 30-minute intervals, recording the total number of vehicles

17 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
parked during each period.

Figure 12: Zone 1 Boundary with respect to the Study Area

4.1.2 Zone 2
Zone 2, identified as "SATURDAY" in Figure 11, was specifically designated for collecting parking data on Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. This data collection timeframe was determined based on the 2018 Parking Study. Zone 2 is entirely within Downtown Bakersfield. Zone 2 consists of forty-two city blocks in the southwest corner of the study area bounded by Truxtun Avenue, 22nd Street, F Street and M Street. Zone 2 encompasses Zone 1. Figure 13 shows the boundary of Zone 2, which also contains a publicly held parking lot. Data was collected at 30-minute intervals, noting the total number of vehicles parked during each period.

Figure 13: Zone 2 Boundary with respect to the Study Area

4.1.3 Zone 3A
While Zones 1 and 2 were designed for specific data collection efforts, Zone 3A encompasses the entirety of Downtown Bakersfield. Zone 3A is bounded by Truxtun Avenue,

18 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
24th Street, F Street and Union Avenue as shown in Figure 14. This is the primary activity center in the study area and all of Bakersfield. Data collection in this zone occurred from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a weekday in June 2023. The frequency of data collection was every 30 minutes. Total number of vehicles parked every 30 minutes was gathered as part of the study.

Figure 14: Zone 3A Boundary with respect to Study Area

4.1.4 Zone 3B
All the study area not contained in Zone 3A was included in Zone 3B, also known as, Old Town Kern (OTK). Zone 3B is bounded by Truxtun Avenue, Beale Avenue, Union Avenue and CA 178 as shown in Figure 15. Zone 3B is split in half by a railroad line with only three connections between the two halves – Union Avenue, Baker Street and Beale Avenue. Data was collected in this zone between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on a weekday in June 2023.

The frequency of data collection was every 30 minutes. Total number of vehicles parked every 30 minutes was gathered as part of the study.

Figure 15: Zone 3B with respect to Study Area

DOWNTOWN/
ZONE 3A

OLD TOWN KERN/
ZONE 3B

19 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
To perform a granular analysis at the block level, the whole study area (Zone 3A and Zone 3B combined) was divided into 715 individual segments for which parking metrics were calculated individually. Analysis was conducted only on segments where parking is permitted by ordinance. Anywhere parking was disallowed was left out of the scope of analysis with the assumption that parking there was illegal and as such would be a matter of enforcement.

Figure 16 shows the various road segments that were designed for the purpose of analysis.

Each segment was given a unique name based on the following method:

1. Identify the southwest corner: of the block whose part the segment is which is to be named.

2. East-West Code: If the east-west road at that intersection is a number, use the number of the street (e.g. “17” for 17th Street). If the road is a named road (le. g.

Truxtun Avenue), use the first three letters of the name (e.g. “TRU” for Truxtun Avenue). Let this be called the “East-West Code” (EWC)

3. North-South Code: If the north-south road at that intersection is a letter, use the letter of the street (e.g. “F” for F Street). If the road is a named road (e.g. Chester Avenue), use the first three letters of the name (e.g. “CHE” for Chester Avenue). Let this be called the “North-South Code” (NSC)

4. Direction Indicator: Finally, use a directional code to indicate which side of the block the segment is in. If, for example, the segment is at the bottom of the block, use South; East for right; West for left, and North for top. Let this be called the “Direction Indicator” (DID)

5. Finally, combine the three codes thus: <EWC>_<NSC>_<DID>. Some examples of unique IDs are: ‘17_F_West’ (for the left side of the block whose SW intersection is 17th Street and F Street), or ‘Mon_Iny_North’ (for the top side of the block whose SW intersection is Monterey Street and Inyo Street).

All segments were thus named using the same principle to maintain consistency.

Figure 16: Analysis Segments in the Study Area

20 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

4.2 Existing Parking Utilization
The primary metric evaluated in this study was parking utilization, defined as the percentage of available parking spaces occupied at any given point in time. Since the frequency of data gathering was 30-minute intervals, the study estimates utilization at every 30-minute interval for each of the segments shown in Figure 16. Parking space utilization is analyzed in three distinct ways:

1. Peak Utilization Estimation: The maximum utilization value for a given road segment, or a group of roads-segments.

2. Hotspot Identification: By combining the percentage utilization with the duration of utilization, the study estimates “hotspots” where parking demand is consistently high for a majority of the data collection window. Table 3 shows the designation of hotspots based on the number of hours that utilization is higher than 85%.

Table 3: Categories of Hotspots
Designation Weekdays/Saturdays
(out of 5 hours)
Fridays
(out of 2 hours)
Uncritical 0 – 1.5 hours 0 – 0.5 hours
Semi-Critical 1.5 – 3 hours 0.5 – 1 hour
Critical 3 – 4 hours 1 – 1.5 hours
Urgent 4 – 5 hours 1.5 – 2 hours

4.2.1 Garage
Per information received from the City of Bakersfield, there are 502 slots available for parking in the garage located at the intersection of 18th Street and Eye Street. Of these, 171 slots located on the 5th floor and above are designated for city fleet services. This leaves 331 slots available for public use, with 16 reserved for disabled users and/or electric vehicle users. This leaves 315 slots for general public usage. Figure 17 depicts the garage as viewed from the intersection of 18th Street and Eye Street.

21 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 17: Street View of the City-owned Garage.

To estimate parking utilization within the garage, a field survey was conducted in September and October 2023. The survey counted the number of vehicles using the garage following the same schedule as the on-street parking field survey: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Fridays to coincide with the First Friday of the Month event. Surveys were conducted at 30-minute intervals.

The results of all the surveys and associated maps are provided in Section 5.

4.3 Future Parking Estimation
For estimating the demand for parking in the future, the following assumptions were made:

1. This analysis does not include privately held parking lots.

2. New housing developments outside the study area but within the City are expected to increase parking demand based on current trends.

3. A total of 2,622 new parking spaces will be required by new construction within the study area; with all demand concentrated in Downtown. This construction will consist of medium density housing, with all new parking demand anticipated by 2030.

4. High-Speed Rail is projected to be operational by 2030, generating additional parking demand as detailed in Table 4.

5. Background growth rate of parking demand is projected at 2% annually between 2023 and 2030, and 1% annually from 2030 to 2045.

6. Areas currently experiencing high parking demand are expected to attract a greater proportion of the new parking demand.

22 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Table 4: Increase in Parking Demand due to HSR Construction HSR Parking Demand Regime Street Name Percentage Increase Major Infill Chester Avenue +10%
Eye Street +10%
Spillover Effect
K Street +5%
17th Street +5%
18th Street +5%
19th Street +5%
Parking Garage Parking Garage +5%

Figure 18 shows the general model used for developing future parking estimation.

Figure 18: General Parking Demand Generation and Distribution Model New parking demand in the study area is generated both by developments within the area and by the incoming population from outside. As new construction progresses and more people move into the City, parking demand is expected to increase. This demand is attributed to vehicle trips made by residents in these new developments. For the purpose of this analysis, the total new vehicles requiring parking spaces within the study area are represented as V, where:

𝑉 = 𝑉1 + 𝑉2

V1 represents the number of vehicles originating from outside the study area but requiring parking within it.

V2 represents the number of vehicles originating from within the study area.

23 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
This new demand, when added to the existing demand (E), creates the short-term parking demand (STPD) as follows:

𝑆𝑇𝑃𝐷 = 𝐸 + 𝑉
The study also aims to estimate how all the new vehicles, V, will be distributed within the study area. There are two options for parking in the City – on-street, or in a garage. If D1 is the number of new vehicles that will park on the streets, and D2 be the number that will park in the garage, then:

𝑉 = 𝐷1 + 𝐷2
STPD is assumed to be the parking demand for the year 2023. STPD will be grown at a certain rate of growth, g1, of 2% annually until 2030 when the new High-Speed Rail station is expected to become functional. New parking demand within the study area generated because of the HSR station is denoted by V3. , leading to Medium-Term Parking Demand (MTPD) equation:

𝑀𝑇𝑃𝐷 = 𝑆𝑇𝑃𝐷 ∗ (1 + 𝑔1)7 + 𝑉3
No other large-scale developments are anticipated post 2030. Thus, Long-Term Parking Demand will be estimated from MTPD by using a growth rate, g2 of 1% annually until 2045:

𝐿𝑇𝑃𝐷 = 𝑀𝑇𝑃𝐷 ∗ (1 + 𝑔2)15
For our purposes g1 is 2% and g2 is 1%.

A comprehensive explanation of this process, including the calculation methodologies and assumptions, is provided in Appendix B attached to this report.

24 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

5. Results
This section outlines the results of the parking analysis conducted using the data and methods listed above. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in the City, drivers tend to prefer on- street parking over using, the garage located in Zone 3A. Currently, parking availability meets demand, but with the introduction of new housing and the High-Speed Rail (HSR) facility, demand is anticipated to exceed supply in Zone 3A. However, this imbalance is not expected in Zone 3B. The study finds that by implementing new policies and practices, the need for constructing additional parking can be mitigated. This approach aligns with the City’s and the county’s (as well as the Metropolitan Planning Organization's, which overlaps with the county's) vision to transform Bakersfield into a city with multi-modal transportation options.8

5.1 Existing Parking Supply

5.1.1 On-Street Parking Supply
There are 5,738 parking slots on the streets in the study area including 70 designated for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance and 4 exclusively for electric vehicles. Of these, 3,403 are located in Zone 3A and 2,335 are in Zone 3B. 50 of the 70 ADA-compliant parking slots and all four electric vehicle slots are situated in Zone 3A.

Within Zone 3A, Zone 1 has 1,035 parking slots accounting for 19% of the total on-street parking slots in the study area. Table 5 provides a detailed breakdown of the available parking within the study area.

Table 5: Supply of On-Street Parking
Regular ADA EV TOTAL % of Study
Area
Zone 1 1035 31 0 1066 19%
Zone 2 1421 33 0 1454 25%

Zone 3A 3349 50 4 3403 59%
Zone 3B 2315 20 0 2335 41%
TOTAL 5664 70 4 5738 100%

It can be seen from Table 5 that Zone 3A comprises nearly 60% of all parking slots within the study, including 70% of ADA compliant slots and all slots designated for electric vehicles.

Zone 3B lacks slots exclusively for electric vehicles and none of the electric vehicle parking slots are equipped with recharging facilities. Figure 19 shows the distribution of parking supply indicating that most (78%) of the segments accommodate 10 or fewer vehicles.

However, one location, labeled “20_Mil_West” offers space for 52 vehicles. This high capacity is attributed to its proximity to the Bakersfield Museum of Art, the nearby lake, and the Federal Courthouse. The block encompassing this road segment totals 198 parking

8 Explanation: Several factors beyond the scope of this study must be evaluated before deciding on the construction of a new parking lot. Some of them are – evaluating demand of parking just outside the study area, changing policies regarding parking near the existing parking lot, reducing parking demand through expanded/new transit, etc.

25 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
slots.

Figure 19: Supply of On-Street Parking
Additionally, within Zone 1, certain east-west streets—specifically 18th Street and 19th Street have parking capacities ranging from 11 and 20 slots. This increased capacity can be attributed to the implementation of diagonal parking along these streets. Across the study area, each road segment on average has 8 parking slots.

Figure 20 shows the distribution of ADA-compliant parking slots on the streets highlighting areas where several contiguous city blocks lack ADA-compliant parking. Zone 2, which accounts for nearly 25% of all parking slots in the study area has half of all the ADA- compliant slots.

26 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 20: Supply of ADA-Compliant Parking Slots

5.1.2 Garage Parking Supply
The City-owned parking garage is located at the intersection of 18th Street and Eye Street. offers 331 parking slots for public use, with an additional 171 slots reserved for City fleet services. Of the 331 parking slots, 16 are designated for ADA-compliance and are equipped with electric vehicle charging stations, leaving 315 slots available for general use. Notably, all electric vehicle parking slots feature recharging facilities.

5.2 Existing Parking Utilization
Weekday parking demand across the study area averages 47%, indicating that supply exceeds demand by a 2:1 ratio. At peak times, 2,722 of the total 5,738 slots are occupied.

Zone 1 experiences the highest utilization at 71%, while Zone 3B has the lowest at 41%.

5.2.1 Weekday
On an average weekday, parking in the study area peaks at noon with a maximum utilization of 47%. Demand increases from 41.6% at 10 a.m. to 47.4% at noon and decreases to 41.4% by 3 p.m., indicating a quicker rise in demand compared to its decline At maximum utilization, 757 of 1,066 parking slots in Zone 1 were found to be occupied (71%), 960 of the 1,454 slots in Zone 2 (66%), 1,784 out of 3,403 in Zone 3A (52%), and 954 out of 2,335 in Zone 3B (41%) were found occupied.

These findings not only confirm the assumption that Zone 1 is the core of the study area where most people congregate for work, but they also show that Zone 3B has the least demand due to a lack of employment density. Figure 21 shows the distribution of parking at noon on a typical weekday.

27 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 21: Demand for Parking, Noon, Study Area
As the figure shows, demand in Zone 1 is high. Demand is also high on the southeast side of Zone 3A. This surge is attributed to the presence of government offices, the art museum and local attractions like Central Park at Mill Creek, along with several small sized offices.

Interestingly, in Zone 2, parking demand was notably higher along east-west streets compared to north-south streets. This pattern may be partly due to angled parking spaces, as depicted in Figure 3. It might be worth investigating if this could also be due to several businesses having storefronts along east-west streets and whether creating more storefronts on north-south streets might redistribute parking in the future.

In Zone 3B, demand for parking is higher on streets south of the rail line. There are two reasons for this: the limited number of bridges connecting the two sides of Zone 3B and the continuation of high-demand streets from Zone 3A into the southern part of Zone 3B, making them primary targets for parking, especially during spillover from Zone 3A.On the north side of Zone 3B, parking demand is concentrated around the Bakersfield City School District office which is the block around Niles Street and Kern Street.

Figure 22 shows the progression of parking on a weekday.

28 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 22: On-Street Parking Demand by Time

5.2.2 Special Case I – Friday Evening
The parking demand on the First Friday of the Month was specifically analyzed on June 2, 2023, between 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in Zone 1. Of the 1,066 parking slots, 750 were occupied, resulting in a 70% utilization rate. Demand grew from a high base of 67.5% at 6:30 p.m., peaked at 71.3% at 7 p.m., remained nearly constant until 8 p.m., then decreased to 66.2% by 8:30 p.m. The initial demand exceeded 60% indicating the event's popularity. Figure 23 shows the distribution of parking in Zone 1 at 7 pm.

Figure 23: Demand for On-Street Parking, FFM Event

29 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Again, it is observed that parking demand is particularly high on east-west streets, with a focus on 18th Street, 19th Street and 20th Street. This area coincides with a high concentration of businesses. Figure 24 shows the build-up of demand in Zone 1 on Friday evenings.

Figure 24: Demand Growth in Zone 1 during FFM Events

5.2.2 Special Case II – Saturdays
As a second special case of parking demand analysis, data was collected on Saturday, June 3, 2023, between 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. in Zone 2. At its peak, utilization in Zone 2 was found to be 40% at 12:30 p.m. Demand grew from 33% at 10 a.m. to peak at 12:30 p.m. then declined to 27% by 3 p.m. In this way, unlike on a weekday, demand on a weekend declined faster than it grew. It must be noted that demand reduced after the typical lunchtime on a Saturday, and this might be one of the reasons. Figure 25 shows the distribution of parking at 12:30 p.m. on Saturday.

30 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 25: Demand for On-Street Parking on Saturdays
Figure 25 illustrates a notable concentration of parking demand around 19th Street, in contrast to adjacent blocks or road segments perpendicular to, but intersecting with 19th Street, which does not experience the same demand. This disparity could reflect the perceived availability of space attracting more demand. Strategies to redistribute such demand to side streets can greatly help in reducing the congestion of vehicles on one street.

Blocks at the periphery of Zone 2 do not experience any parking demand despite them being only 3-4 blocks away from areas of high demand. Increasing access to a safe pedestrian route from the periphery to businesses around 19th Street could be an effective solution.

Introducing visible parking guide signs and employing smart parking technology to indicate available parking slots are also viable strategies for managing parking demand more efficiently. Figure 26 depicts the progression of parking demand in Zone 2 on Saturdays.

31 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 26: Demand for On-Street Parking on Saturday

5.2.3 In Garage Parking Demand
Parking utilization inside the garage located at 18th Street and Eye Street was calculated for the same periods as on-street demand. For an average working day, Table 6 shows the utilization of parking inside the garage as compared to on-street demand in Zone 1 as well as across the entire study area, encompassing both Zone 3A and 3B.

Table 6: Parking Demand in Garage, Weekday
Time In Garage Zone 1 Study Area
10:00 AM 36% 60% 42%
10:30 AM 34% 59% 43%
11:00 AM 35% 65% 45%
11:30 AM 34% 69% 47%
12:00 PM 40% 70% 47%
12:30 PM 41% 71% 47%
01:00 PM 44% 67% 45%
01:30 PM 38% 65% 45%
02:00 PM 40% 65% 44%
02:30 PM 39% 60% 42%
03:00 PM 39% 61% 41%
AVERAGE 38% 65% 44%
MAX UTILIZATION 44% 71% 47%

32 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
The data reveals that garage utilization is approximately 30 percentage points lower than on- street parking in Zone 1 but closely aligns with the overall parking utilization in the study area, differing by only an average of 6 percentage points. Notably, when maximum utilization is compared, garage utilization is only 3 percentage points lower than utilization as a whole in the study area. This leads to the conclusion that the tendency of users in the study area to park in the garage is no different than their tendency to park in general (in the study area) and that users might find it more preferable to park on the streets as compared to the garage for several reasons. Supporting this, Table 7 provides a detailed comparison of a garage versus on-street parking utilization in Zone 1 during the First Friday of the Month Event and on Saturdays.

Table 7: Garage Utilization on Fridays and Saturdays, compared to Zone 1 First Friday of the Month Saturdays
Time In Garage Zone 1 Time In Garage Zone 1
06:30 PM 58% 67% 10:00 AM 24% 43%
07:00 PM 61% 70% 10:30 AM 27% 47%
07:30 PM 77% 70% 11:00 AM 27% 48%
08:00 PM 79% 70% 11:30 AM 31% 45%
08:30 PM 76% 65% 12:00 PM 30% 45%
12:30 PM 31% 49%
01:00 PM 32% 48%
01:30 PM 30% 42%
02:00 PM 32% 35%
02:30 PM 30% 33%
03:00 PM 30% 32%
AVERAGE 70% 68% AVERAGE 29% 42%
MAX UTILIZATION 79% 70% MAX UTILIZATION 32% 49%

As Table 7 shows, the parking patterns observed on weekdays are repeated on Saturdays with similar incentives for garage use. However, during the First Friday of the Month Event, parking garage utilization surpasses that in Zone 1 after 7:30 p.m. and continues to stay above until 8:30 p.m. This suggests that modifying the incentives can effectively encourage users to park inside the garage over on-street parking.

Table 6 and Table 7 illustrate that once peak utilization is reached, the decrease in garage utilization is more gradual compared to on-street parking. Table 8 summarizes these findings.

33 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Table 8: Reduction in Utilization post-Max Utilization, Garage versus Zone 1 Weekdays First Friday of the
Month Saturdays
In Garage Zone 1 In Garage Zone 1 In Garage Zone 1
Max
Utilization 44% 71% 79% 70% 32% 49%
At End of
Study
Period
39% 61% 76% 65% 30% 32%
Reduction -6% -10% -3% -5% -2% -17%

Analysis from Table 8 reveals that on all days examined in this study, the decrease in utilization from the time of maximum utilization was lower in the garage than on adjacent streets. Possible explanations include:

1. On weekdays, users of the garage are more likely employees of businesses in Zone 1 who do not leave the study area after maximum utilization is reached.

2. Garage users plan on spending longer hours in Zone 1, exceeding the 2-hour limit typically allowed on the streets. This is borne out by the large decline in on-street utilization on Saturdays versus the merely 2% decline in utilization in the garage.

3. Users prefer the garage over street parking to avoid the risk of receiving a parking ticket, as garage parking allows them to pay at the end of their stay without fear of being fined.

5.3 Hotspot Identification
Section 4.2 discussed the process used to identify hotspots in the study area. Figure 27 indicates the locations of hotspots in the study area on a weekday. Of the 715 road segments, 57 were found to be “Urgent” meaning parking utilization on those road segments is higher than 85% for 80% of the time. This suggests, that not only is the absolute number of vehicles trying to park in those segments high, but it also continues to be high for 4 out of the 5 hours for which data was collected. Zone 1 has the greatest number of “Urgent” road segments. A further 34 segments were found to be “Critical” suggesting utilization is higher than 85% for 60% of the study period. Combined with “Urgent”, both these categories reflect 13% of all road segments and focusing solution strategies on them might help solve the immediate problems of parking.

Solution strategies are discussed in Section 6. Zone 3B contains the greatest number of uncritical segments, indicating that demand for parking is concentrated in Zone 3A. Areas, where several segments are critical/urgent, should also be monitored for road safety since it is likely that vehicles might circle surrounding blocks in search of parking several times before finding a spot.

34 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 27: Hotspots in Study Area, Weekday
Significantly, hotspots do not extend beyond two blocks, indicating a preference among users to park as close as possible to their destination, often avoiding walking more than two blocks. Addressing the reasons why users are averse to walking less than 1,000 ft (roughly 3 city blocks in Bakersfield) is crucial.9 Outside of Zone 2, the concentration of hotspots seems directly linked to a few specific buildings attracting several users. It must further be noted that road segments immediately around the parking garage are all “urgent” meaning that at the location of the parking garage, demand for parking is high. This underscores the trend of individuals opting for street parking over garage parking upon entering Downtown Bakersfield. Figure 28 shows hotspots on a Friday evening during the First Friday of the Month event, revealing that the majority of road segments are deemed as “Urgent” (67 road segments), particularly those between G Street and K Street and from 18th and 20th Streets.

It is under such circumstances that users are pushed to find parking in the garage as shown in Table 7 above.

9 From Figure 27, it can be seen that hotspots are not longer than two blocks at any location. Therefore, it can be said that whatever the users’ destination might be, concentration of vehicles' demand usually recedes within two blocks. In other words, users seem to be comfortable parking no more than two blocks from their presumed destination.

35 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 28: Hotspots on Friday Evening (FFM Event)
Figure 29 provides an overview of parking on Saturdays in Zone 2, identifying seven road segments as “Urgent” and an additional ten are “Critical”. With few exceptions, these critical and urgent segments were found to be concentrated around the intersection of Chester Avenue and 19th Street, highlighting the correlation between popular business locations and the preference for nearby parking. Notably the parking garage situated 2 block lengths away (a walking distance) from Chester Avenue at 19th Street, shows a mere 29% utilization on Saturdays. This indicated that excess demand for on-street parking on Saturdays can be moved to the parking garage without users having to walk more than 1,000 feet to their destinations.

Figure 29: Hotspots in Zone 2 on Saturdays

36 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

5.4 Future Parking Utilization
Using the methodology summarized in Section 4.3 Future Parking Estimation” detailed in Appendix B, the study estimated future parking demand for 2023, 2030 and 2045. The short-term parking demand for 2023, is influenced by new parking generated from recent building permits issued by the City. This emerging demand combined with existing demand, is projected to grow at an annual rate of 2% leading up to 2030, by which time. All new housing and the HSR facility are anticipated to be operational.10 From 2030 to 2045, the study forecasts all parking demand to increase at a more modest rate of 1% per year for 15 years.

Table 9 shows the results of the analysis under expected levels of growth.

Table 9: Future Conditions Demand in Study Area, by Zone Capacity Existing
Demand
Short Term
(2023)
Medium
Term (2030)
Long Term
(2045)
Zone 1 1066 737 890 1889 2172
Zone 2 1454 939 1112 2443 2810

Zone 3A 3403 1780 1933 4539 5220
Zone 3B 2335 942 942 1087 1250
Study Area 5738 2722 2875 5626 6470
Garage 331 144 155 597 665

According to Table 9 by 2030, Zone 3A will have exceeded its capacity, but the study area as a whole will only have 112 spare slots. By 2045, the study area will be in a deficit of 732 parking slots. A large portion of this growth is driven by the 2,622 new parking slots that will be demanded due to the inclusion of nearly 6,200 new residents moving into Zone 3A. The study did not identify any projections for new residents moving into Zone 3B. Table 10 shows the analysis conducted to determine the number of new parking slots needed due to new developments (not including the HSR). Through evaluations of minimum, medium and maximum growth scenarios, it was concluded that, under expected growth conditions, a total of 2,622 new parking slots will be needed.11
Table 10: Future Demand Estimation due to New Development Basis for Estimating New Population Inside
Study Area
Bakersfield
2045
Downtown Capacity
Study
Persons 10000 6000
Households 3125 3600

10 Effective growth rate will be higher than 2% since it would include demand from the HSR station, and the addition of 6,000 – 10,000 new persons in Zone 3A.
11 Expected = (MIN + 4*MID + MAX)/6

37 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Basis for Estimating New Population Inside
Study Area
Bakersfield
2045
Downtown Capacity
Study
% In Downtown 100% 50%
Study Area HH 3125 1800
Medium Density Parking Demand 4178 (MAX) 2403 (MID)
Low Density Parking Demand 1940 (MIN)

Figure 30 illustrates the projected distribution of new parking requirements across the study area by 2030, while Figure 31 extends these projections to 2045. It is worth noting that when compared to the existing conditions map in Figure 21, the maximum number of vehicles demanding slots in any single road segment rose from 21 to 29 and 33.

Figure 30: Medium Term Future Growth (2030)
The maps reveal that while demand has increased overall, a corridor of low parking demand has emerged between the western and eastern regions of Zone 3A. This corridor, highlighted by a band of green between L Street and O Street corresponds with the general growth of two activity centers within Zone 3A: one in the west anchored by all the businesses, and another to the east anchored by the museum and additional civic facilities.

38 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 31: Long-Term Future Growth (2045)
In the Old Town Kern area, or Zone 3B, parking demand is expected to see a minimal increase, primarily due to the absence of new residential developments or significant business relocations to the area. Further, the HSR is not anticipated to impact this neighborhood. All increases in parking demand from this region are attributed to general background growth.

5.4.1 Parking Demand Sensitivity
This sub-section details results from an uncertainty analysis conducted to evaluate parking demand under two contrasting growth scenarios:

Low Growth Scenario: Assumes a smaller influx of residents into Zone 3A, utilizing the minimum (MIN) estimates from Table 10, coupled with a five percentage-point reduction in HSR-induced parking demand.

High Growth Scenario: Accounts for a larger population moving into Zone 3A, based on the maximum (MAX) projections from Table 10, along with a five percentage-point increase in the impact of HSR-induced parking demand.

Results from the analysis are first presented in Figure 32.

39 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 32: Parking Demand in Study Area - Sensitivity Analysis According to Figure 32, the demand for on-street parking is expected to surpass supply between 2030 and 2045 under expected growth conditions. In an aggressive growth scenario, supply could be depleted between 2023 and 2030. Under a low growth scenario, parking supply is projected to nearly match demand by 2045. While precise future growth rates are uncertain, this analysis suggests that by managing the pace of new resident occupancy in Zone 3A developments, it may be possible to regulate growth rates to ensure that parking supply does not become a constraint. Finally, it must be noted that the outcomes for parking demand are not equally distributed throughout the study area. As Figure 33 shows, on-street parking demand in Zone 3A under any growth scenario is likely to exceed capacity before 2030.In contrast, demand never exceeds supply in Zone 3B. Further, the graph for Zone 3B does not diverge under the sensitivity conditions, since all growth in Zone 3B is driven by background growth, and not by new developments or the HSR facility.

40 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 33: Sensitivity Analysis Results, by Zone

41 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

6. Policy Discussions
This section focuses on identifying the existing and anticipated parking needs of Downtown Bakersfield and Old Town Kern, aiming to propose effective policies and practices to enhance parking revenue potential and maximize the existing supply's efficiency. The list of policies and practices mentioned below are a compilation of those seen in peer cities, adjusted to fit the study area. The following policy ideas have been carefully considered:

1. Incentivizing Garage Parking: Create and Develop incentives to encourage users to park in the garage versus on the streets.

2. Future-Proofing Parking Supply: Adapt parking infrastructure to accommodate the expected growth in Bakersfield due to the influx of new residents and the introduction of the HSR facility.

3. Boosting Downtown Economic Activity: Implement incentives designed to attract more visitors to Downtown, supporting the local economy and business growth.

4. Streamlining Parking Enforcement: Ease the pressure of enforcement of parking.

6.1 Parking Fees

6.1.1 Zone 1 Parking Fee
From all the evidence shown above, Zone 1 is most strained for parking demand. Zone 1 is not only the economic center of the study area, and indeed the City itself, but also the location where special events are held monthly. Zone 1 also houses the parking garage which has a user fee, while all the street parking is free at all times and for all duration.

Given that more users must be incentivized to spend more time in Zone 1, this imbalance of incentive – the garage is relatively far and chargeable, versus on-street parking is immediately nearby and free – can be corrected by implementing a parking fee at par with the garage itself. This will remove the monetary aspect of users choosing whether to park on the street or in the garage. A parking fee higher than the garages is likely to incentivize users to park in the garage.

6.1.2 Parking Fee Escalation
During this study, it was discovered that the parking fee inside the garage was set in 2014 and had not been updated despite increases in wages and prices since then. Therefore, the marginal parking fee in the garage should be increased from $1 per hour to $1.25 per hour with a daily maximum of $12.50. This is in keeping with consumer prices between 2014 and 2022 in Size Class B/C cities in the USA.12

6.1.3 On-Street Parking Near Parking Garage
This report demonstrates that users’ tendency to park in the garage increases (evidenced by the utilization of the garage becoming higher than the on-street parking in Zone 1) when

12 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cw

42 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
parking on the streets becomes more challenging (in this case, due to the First Friday of the Month event). It was also shown that the road segments immediately around the parking garage were classified as “Urgent” in terms of them being parking hotspots. Therefore, it can be concluded that while parking demand in/around the garage exists, it merely needs to be incentivized to park inside the garage.

To encourage more drivers to use the garage, it is proposed to redesignate on-street parking spaces near the garage (encompassing at least one city block in every direction) for specific uses: ride-share pickups/drop-offs, loading/unloading of supplies and emergency vehicle access. Painting the curb with an appropriate color and sufficient signage should be considered to communicate this change to the public.

This approach mirrors a successful strategy observed in Sacramento. More details about the same can be found in Appendix A.

The study team was made aware of a proposal to design bulb-outs and parklets on some streets in Zone 1. All policies that will disincentivize parking nearing the garage are likely to shift demand to parking inside the garage.

6.2 Equity Policies

6.2.1 Additional EV Charging Station Equipped Parking Slots Advancements in vehicle technology, particularly the rise of alternative fuel vehicles like Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), necessitate corresponding enhancements in parking infrastructure. Within the City, existing BEV recharging stations were found to be inside the parking garage, with none outside. This has kept the availability of recharging stations lower than in peer cities with only 1.56 stations per 1,000 residents as compared to the peer cities’ average of 4. As BEV ownership continues to grow among residents, the availability of recharging stations must also keep pace. Currently, the study area is home to 7,045 residents, with an additional 10,000 more expected. To reach the same density of recharging stations, the study area must add at least 40 new recharging stations.

Furthermore, the stations must be distributed all over the study area, including a few at those locations with disabled parking. Coupled with a parking fee in Zone 1, this is likely to incentivize new users who might not be traveling Downtown for fear of not being able to recharge their vehicles and becoming an economic multiplier.

6.2.2 Long Term Parking Fee
The current fee structure of the City’s parking garage is$1 per hour from the third hour of parking, with a daily maximum of $10. In this way, vehicles parked between 12 and 24 hours do not pay more than $10. Such a fee structure should be revised so that people who park for longer hours pay more. It was shown from the garage parking data that users who use the garage for longer than a full day (or 12 hours) pay an average of $11 per transaction (which is higher than the daily cap of $10 since they park for multiple days). However, those parking less than a full day pay $2.50 per transaction on average. This shows that the user does not pay a “premium” for parking their vehicles overnight (or even multiple days) despite getting the added protection of a gated parking structure overnight. Therefore, a premium

43 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
category for parking overnight in the garage can be introduced with a premium parking rate which is higher than the daily maximum amount.

This adjustment would more accurately reflect the cost of monitoring the garage overnight and is likely to increase revenue.

6.2.3 Residents’ Parking Passes
As Downtown Bakersfield evolves into a more residential and or mixed land-use area, offering discounted parking rates in the garage for nearby residents can serve dual purposes:

1. It frees up more on-street parking for visitors, enhancing accessibility and convenience.

2. It opens a new revenue channel for the parking garage by encouraging resident usage.

Peer cities analyzed in this study have implemented residents' parking programs, achieving several key outcomes:

1. Park overnight where overnight parking was not allowed.

2. Ensure space for their vehicles on a long-term basis.

3. Removed “lack of enough parking” as a disincentive for people from moving into high- density areas.

4. Created a method for collecting residential parking demand data for the City/monitoring authority.

6.3 Parking Enforcement
If supply and demand of parking is one pillar on which the parking system rests, the other is undoubtedly parking enforcement. The City uses time regulated parking for enforcement purposes throughout the City. The study recognized 12 differently timed zones for parking in the study area. Figure 34 shows the distribution of time regulation measured in minutes across the study area.

44 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 34: Time Regulations in Bakersfield Study Area
Some field collected evidence also suggests that enforcement of parking in the study area was lax and vehicles frequently parked in restricted areas or exceeded the designated time limits. Therefore, the following practices are recommended:

6.3.1 Telescopic Parking
Using a model currently in place in Sacramento and soon to be implemented in Pasadena, the enforcement of parking can be greatly simplified in areas with paid on-street parking.

Independent of comments made in this subsection, this study has suggested that on-street parking be made chargeable in Zone 1. Telescopic parking refers to the principle of allowing users of a parking slot to park for as long as they want but charging them a fee structure that reflects the number of hours they have parked. In this system, all on-street paid parking areas are divided into “parking regimes”. For example, a “1+” regime refers to areas where parking fees do not begin to escalate until the second hour or a “3+” regime refers to areas where parking fees don’t begin to escalate until the fourth hour. Fees continue to increase until reaching a predetermined daily maximum. Sacramento utilizes four such regimes: 1+, 2+, 3+ and 4+. Telescopic parking has the following advantages:

1. Eliminating the need to enforce timed parking, as fees compensate for extended parking durations.

2. Generating increased revenue through exponential price increases after the base time of each regime.

3. Encouraging garage parking by making extended on-street parking more costly.

4. Allowing users to “park once and forget”, reducing concerns over parking tickets and encouraging longer stays in the area.

45 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
The City may decide on how many regimes to create and what the fee escalation structure in each would be. Figure 35 shows an example of the four-regime structure in Sacramento13.

Figure 35: Telescopic Parking Regimes in Sacramento

6.3.2 Reduction in Enforcement Zone/Parking Security
The analysis indicates that parking constraints are primarily confined to Zone 2, where parking demand exceeds supply. Outside of Zone 2, there's a surplus of parking availability.

Therefore, the City can focus on enforcement efforts only for spaces inside Zone 2. Such a change will have a positive impact on building trust between enforcement and create a sense of greater security, especially in areas where on-street paid parking will be introduced.

Further, using technology to change focus from parking enforcement to parking security might also help in fostering a relationship where users feel secure in parking their vehicle away from their destination. This could encourage a better spread of parking demand and reduce the progression of “Urgent” parking hotspots.

6.4 Parking Demand Management

6.4.1 Continuous Parking Data Collection Plan
Using the principle of “what gets measured gets better”, the City must institute a continuous parking data collection plan. Incorporating technology, such as license plate reading devices and radar-enabled spaces, will facilitate the monitoring of parking frequency and duration on road segments. This approach enables the City to stay informed about the evolving dynamics of parking usage and allows for the adjustment of policies, including parking fees, to better align with current demand and usage patterns.

6.4.2 Use of Phone Applications
Information gathered during this study suggests that the City parking garage collects nearly all revenue through card transactions. However, the use of mobile device applications has become widespread in tracking and charging for parking. Among the peer cities, two phone applications were found to be popular: ParkMobile and Passport. The City must investigate the use of at least one such application for tracking demand and collecting revenue. Such a system has the following advantages:

13 For more details, refer to: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Public-Works/Parking/SacPark- Tiered-Pricing-Sheet.pdf?la=en

46 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

1. Unified Data Collection: Automatically creates a uniform data collection platform through the study area.

2. Information Dissemination: Users can know the cost of parking before leaving their homes. They can also know where parking slots are available for them.

3. Ease of Collection: Collection of fee becomes subsumed into the application, and this creates positive feedback loop.

4. Ease of Use: In some cases, users can find and pre-pay for parking before arriving at the study area thereby reducing their need to drive around City streets in search of parking, while also creating a positive experience of driving Downtown.

5. Change Management: The City can disseminate information about changes to parking for special events, maintenance, etc.

6.4.3 Develop Alternative Modes of Transportation
This study shows that the City had the highest proportion of High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) trips among peer cities. However, it also had the lowest proportion of transit, bike, or pedestrian trips. Any long-term parking solution must be accompanied by incentives to increase the proportion of non-motorized trips. Further, any incentive that increases users parking choice towards the garage, would mean more demand for walking spaces to/from their destination. Potential initiatives to consider include:

1. Active Transportation Plan: A comprehensive walk and bike plan for the whole City so that users can enter and exit the study area without needing a vehicle.

2. Dense Housing: Creating denser and more mixed-use development that increases the demand base for businesses, while also reducing the distance between them

3. Incentives for Mode Shift: Creating incentives for users to move to the transit system.

4. Biking Infrastructure: Creating bike racks on sidewalks in areas with high demand. For example, Pasadena has an on-demand bike rack installation program where citizens can request a bike rack on public right-of-way.14 Figure 36 shows an example of one such rack.

14 More details are available at: https://www.cityofpasadena.net/transportation/transportation-improvements/bike-parking/

47 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

Figure 36: Bike rack in public right of way in Pasadena, CA Image Credits: https://www.cityofpasadena.net/transportation/transportation-improvements/bike-parking/ To incentivize long-term bike parking, especially for residents of the study area, bicycle cages can also be constructed at appropriate locations.15

6.4.4 Special Events Handling
Discussions with officials from the City, highlighted concerns about parking congestion during large events, especially around the Mechanics Bank Arena on Truxtun Avenue, which can accommodate over 1,000 visitors. Despite having a large parking lot, patrons often opt for street parking Outside of this being an issue with parking enforcement, the study suggests the following remedies for future events:

1. Collaboration with Event Organizers: Frequent meetings with organizers of large events to build a plan for handling parking.

2. Collaboration with Private Lot Owners: Identifying roads or privately held parking lots that would act as spillover lots should the Arena’s primary lot reach capacity.

3. Collaboration with Transit Agency: Incentivize patrons who choose to arrive using the transit; coordinate with the transit agency to run special buses before and after the event to take people to locations out of the study area where parking is not an issue.

4. Dedicated Street Parking: For smaller events, like conferences, graduations, etc., the City could institute an event parking system (which can be pushed through the mobile parking application). In this case, the City could hypothecate streets where event attendees could park their vehicles.

15 More details are at: https://cao-94612.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/documents/BicycleParking_Overview_July2008.pdf

48 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

5. Collaboration with Ride Sharing: Create incentives with ride-sharing companies so that users see the value in using them versus driving their vehicles to venues; alternatively, the City could formalize ways in which event organizers could run a paid valet service for their events. An example of this can be found in Pasadena’s ordinances.16

16 For details, see: http://pasadena-ca.elaws.us/code/coor_title12_ch12.14_sec12.14.060

49 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024

7. Conclusions
This study builds upon a previous analysis from 2018, offering deeper insights into the City’s parking dynamics and exploring policy adjustments informed by successful strategies in Sacramento, Oakland and Pasadena.

Key takeaways from the peer comparison were:

1. All peer cities charged for on-street and garage parking; the City’s rates were the lowest.

2. All peer cities had a higher density of EV charging stations.

3. Cities were interested in creating a pay-as-much-as-you-use system where parking fee was tied to the length of parking and not dictated by a static time limit.

4. All cities had a residents’ parking program which allowed residents of densely built neighborhoods to safely park their vehicles overnight.

5. The use of transit and bikes (often in tandem) reduced the need for parking in the present and the future.

6. All peer cities used mobile-based applications to monitor demand and generate revenue.

7. Cities had policies to subsidize parking for users who earned below a threshold.

Study Findings:

The report indicates that under existing conditions, parking supply is more than adequate for the demand. Further, that few road segments in Zone 1 are stressed for parking demand so that in the short-term, providing incentives for users to park further from their destinations and walking to them could alleviate the issue by redistributing the demand within the same space.

Looking ahead, the anticipated influx of approximately 10,000 new residents in the study area, as well as the introduction of the HSR facility, on-street parking demand is projected to surpass supply between 2030 to 2045. If the growth is lower than expected, then current supply might be able to meet demand by 2045. However, new demand will disproportionately affect Downtown Bakersfield, or Zone 3A. OTK, or Zone 3B demand is unlikely to exceed supply under any condition of growth even by 2045. Creating incentives to redistribute growth more evenly such that demand for new parking might also be spread out more could reduce the stress on one neighborhood, versus another. Under expected conditions of growth, 732 new parking slots will be needed by 2045. The current parking garage is also expected to run out of capacity by 2030 if all new developments and the HSR facility are built. Under expected conditions of growth, 266 new parking slots will be needed in the garage by 2030 and 334 new slots by 2045.

Recommendations:

Section 6 of this report provides in detail, a discussion about the policies which must be implemented to better manage parking in the study area. Table 6 provides a summary of the same.

50 Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Table 11: Summary of policy and practices.
# Policy Aspect Suggested Policy

1.1 Parking Fees Introduction of parking fees at least at par with the parking garage with Zone 1

1.2 Parking Fees Restrict street parking for up to at least one block around the parking garage. Dedicate all street parking in this area to ride-share pick-ups/drop-offs, loading/unloading of freight and emergency vehicle use only.

1.3 Parking Fees Increase garage parking fee to $1.25 per hour for a maximum of $12.50 per day to align with inflation.

2.1 Parking
Equity
City must add at least 40 more electric vehicle parking slots enabled with recharging facilities to be at par with the density of charging stations in peer cities

2.2 Parking
Equity
Introduce a premium parking rate category for long-term garage parking to reflect the true cost of providing extended parking services.

2.3 Parking
Equity
Establish a Residents Parking Pass program offering reduced rates for overnight parking in the garage.

3.1 Parking
Enforcement
Reconsider time-base parking to telescopic parking with three parking regimes, each with their escalating fee structures capped at a maximum amount. (Suggested maximum hourly cap is $3.75)

3.2 Parking
Enforcement
Enforce parking in Zone 2 only.

3.3 Parking
Enforcement
Consider shifting focus from parking enforcement to parking security.

4.1 Parking
Demand
Management
Develop a continuous parking data collection plan.

4.2 Parking
Demand
Management
Contract with a mobile phone-based application system for managing parking demand and collecting parking fees.

4.3 Parking
Demand
Management
Collaborate with all interested parties to encourage alternative modes of transport like HOV trips, pedestrian trips, ride-sharing services, bike trips and transit.

4.4 Parking
Demand
Management
Regularly communicate with organizers of special events to plan for big events. Strategies could include providing high-frequency buses to/from the event venue, shuttles to/from parking lots (both public and private), event passes.

A-1
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Appendix A
Peer Comparison Memo

B-1
Bakersfield Parking Study – March 2024
Appendix B
Future Parking Methodology Memo